There has been a transformation in the Democratic Party. And it's a subtle transformation that I don't think many people are seeing. Based on the language I hear in conservative media today, it’s clear to me that conservatives see the term “progressive” as nothing more than a euphemism for “liberal”. I believe there is more to this new term than just “rebranding”. I think there is a significant division among Democrats, and we have an opportunity to capitalize on that.
In 1995, after the Dems lost Congress, a large number of left wingers left the Democratic party and formed the New Party. We're talking communists and socialists here. They started calling themselves "progressives". Now, obviously, progressive has been a political ideology for a very long time, both on the Republican and Democratic sides. But it is my belief that radical left-wingers have co-opted this word because, unlike "liberal", it is not (YET) charged with negative connotation. They chose this name for themselves, though, to differentiate themselves from liberals, whom they feel are too far to the RIGHT for their tastes. There is a paper written by the founder of the New Party, called After Liberalism, that details what I'm talking about. You will see that they definitely do not consider themselves liberal. And I think it's critical that we begin to recognize this shift, and to identify them as a very different group from liberals.
So the question you may be asking is, why should we distinguish between progressives and liberals? What's the difference? Well, I feel that it is hugely important because, whenever we refer to liberals, we refer to a wide spectrum of political ideals ranging from communism to moderate liberalism. While communism is clearly bad, and must be defeated at every opportunity, lesser brands of liberalism tend to come from good-hearted people who want only to advocate for the common man, the working class, and the poor. I would contend that the majority of traditional Democrats fall into this compassionate or religious liberalism category, and have no more interest in socialism or communism than we conservatives. Sure, there are other social differences like abortion, etc. But on the economic issues, we tend to lump all gradients of the left into one group, and call them the enemy. In so doing, we create a powerful and often unified voting block that opposes all Republican candidates. But in reality, many of them, the kinds of voters attracted to Ronald Reagan, can be persuaded to vote for Republican candidates over more radical left-wing Democratic ones.
If we can break from this sense of "conservative vs. liberal", and put a name on the far left, then we divide that voting block, and make ourselves stronger. By naming themselves "progressives", they have given us that opportunity. We can shine a light on these progressives who have hijacked the Democratic Party and are moving it too far to the left. Groups like PUMA are ripe for this kind of transformation. I believe we're looking at a split in the Democratic Party. And if we can seize on this, it can have a significant effect on the future governance of this country.
I’ve posted numerous times here about the Progressive movement, if you’d like to learn more. Here are some valuable links:
Article on Center for American Progress
Wikipedia entry on Congressional Progressive Caucus